Here they are only $ 50 apart. Canon knows their customers. If you are a birder you would go for the 32 MP R7 with 15 fps mechanical shutter. If you are into sports, you can go either way although lean towards the R8 with that 40 fps with a well controlled rolling shutter (as per most R6MKII reviews).
I still want that small camera with high quality images, waiting for an updated A5100 with the latest autofocus.We all are further down the roadBut there are some small and light FF options. Like I carry the Sigma 24f3.5, FE50f2.5 and Sigma 90f2.8 - or just the FE28-60 kit zoom. Not very fast options, sure. But I rather compromise on speed as I don't use f1.4 or even faster that often. Of course, size and weight of the original NEX cameras with the early Sony or Sigma lenses can't be beaten. In fact that was Sony's original claim to fame: Small, yet high quality images.
Because stills photographers NEVER use ultra wide lenses.
No, because they don't care for a power zoom. As regards prime lenses: There are many focal lenghts that Sony could have addressed. I mean: What is their prime line up for APS-C? Disregard Sigma for a moment. The 16f2.8? Forget it. The 20f2.8, the 24f.18, the 35 and 50. All of the were released like when? 10 years ago? All could use an update as lens design has come a long way since then.
No need to become agressive. I do listen, and I do read. We just have different views.
I don't see any sign of improvement other than for the v-logger market.
I don't care for power zooms. But I did order the 10-20 as it is a good lens and will work just fine on my FF cameras when I want a small footprint. Also ordered a Sigma 18-50f2.8 (which I found disappointing with Fuji mount - firmware issue and strange profile error when importing DNGs from DxO PL to LR).
I don't shoot video except on my iphone. But I didn't know that the 15G was mainly for vloggers? I missed that memo. I bought one as a photographer because it is so light and sharp and definitely a mini 24/1.4 G for full frame. 24mm is a very popular focal range for photographers.
Yes, agressive and totally unwarranted.
Just like your limited opinion.
The original question was: Does the interview give hope for still photographers to see new cameras aimed at still photography. Not: Has Sony developed good WA lenses? Most reviewers have concluded that those lenses are aimed at v-loggers.
You seem to have insider knowledge as to what Sony can and cannot do at the same time.
You didn't miss any memo - but a number of reviews when the lenses came out concluding that three WA/UAW lenses launched at the same time clearly pointed towards Sony commitment to v-loggers, i.e. video. Of course all the lenses can be used for still photography. I have ordered the 10-20.
Sony has great UAW and WA lenses including the Touit 12/2.8 which I own. I would have opted for the 10-20 if it wasn't for the Touit. IMHO, the Sony APS-C lens lineup is stacked and I am not even counting third party. They just have to deliver the much delayed (well at least a year) of the A6600 replacement. I am not in a hurry so 2024 spring release is even good for me.
Forgot to mention: I'll be using the 10-20 and my other APS-C lenses mostly on Sony FF cameras. The a7r3 provides more than enough pixels and doesn't have an AA filter, and the even the a7c returns sufficient pixels. Do I am not really waiting for a new Sony APS-C camera. And if I look at some of the rumors, if the new APS-C model was a FF size body with an APS-C sensor - what good would that be?
For birding and sports Sony has the FF options in the A9 and A7R series. However in my case they are more expensive than the price of A6600. Also, you got to have the right lenses. Justin and a few others have done well with their A6600/A6500 and 200-600mm rigs shooting wildlife. In my case for the sports that I do, I need something longer than a 135mm if I want to shoot with the faster A9MKII/MKI. Also I couldn't afford those bodies and I'm reluctant to buy them used.
Telling someone they are listining or taking info in is not aggressive? It is where I live.
What exactly am I supposed to re-evaluate? The question has not been wheter the new lenses can be used for still photography. Of course they can. And both, the 11 and 15 are a welcome addition. But the question was: Are they any indication that Sony will launch future APS-C cameras with a focus on still images? My take is that they don't - also based on others who point out that UAW and PZ point towards video. The fact that you and I and others are also using them in still photography doesn't change that.
I recently got the Canon R6MKII my first Canon mirrorless. One advantage of this is I can use my EF (the ones I use for my DSLRs) seamlessly with the adapter. I did my first walkabout with my standard lens 24-105/4. The weight didn't bother me but it will take awhile to get used to the bulk again. For walkabouts and for travel----the A6600 and 16-70/4 OSS is definitely easier to carry and I think the IQ is almost the same compared to my Canon gear.
